Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

for the advocates who say ''cut spending, cut spending''; how much of the spending do you actually know where it goes?

2nd of all, before cutting essential programs, why not cut frivolous spending instead?

is Sarko ready to give up his limousine and palace?

seriously Right Wingers; why not cut in some unimportant areas before banging the ''cut social programs'' drums

Your preaching to deaf ears, why bother cutting down on frivolous spending when they can make the public bend down and pay for their unnecessary costs. I'm with CharlieDigital here, you only cut it if it is absolutely necessary - which I doubt is the case as several people have raised a number of objections and alternative solutions that have yet been answered.

 

[nyong]

Because history shows time and time again that a passive, lethargic people will always get what they want from their government, so long as they stand up for their beliefs without inconveniencing anyone else, right?

Politicians listen to large groups of peaceful protesters because it's an indication that things may not go their way next election cycle.

It's not either a) do nothing or b) hold nation hostage. There is an option 'c' (etc).

 

[gutter_trash]

Politicians listen to large groups of peaceful protesters because it's an indication that things may not go their way next election cycle.

It's not either a) do nothing or b) hold nation hostage. There is an option 'c' (etc).

I rather have people take a nation hostage instead of lettering corporations keep politicians in their pockets and enslave the nation

 

[fortified_concept]

Everyone against the health care bill is an ignorant hick and a corporate puppet? Didn't we determine fairly conclusively that the health care bill favors the industry?

Or do you mean that corporations also incidentally tend to favor lower taxes, which is as obvious and inane a point as one could make?

In my post was I talking about a) everyone against the Health care bill or b) was I specifically talking about the Tea party retards? Read it aloud and tell me the answer. Seriously, do you keep making strawmen to piss me off or is your tag actually true?

Also the Health care bill is horrible and an obvious compromise of Obama to HMO lobbyists. That doesn't mean of course that HMOs like it, it just means that Obama is pathetic and he caved in to some of their demands. And yes, corporations have the Tea party movement by the balls and they control it because it's consisted mostly of idiots, racists and religious nuts, groups that can easily be manipulated.

 

[owlbeak]

Politicians listen to large groups of peaceful protesters because it's an indication that things may not go their way next election cycle.

You live in a god damn fantasy world.

Glad people like you weren't around in the 1700s.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Politicians listen to large groups of peaceful protesters because it's an indication that things may not go their way next election cycle.

lol. By that logic, the Republicans would've taken the initiative in the Senate and repealed DADT.

 

[nyong]

In my post was I talking about a) everyone against the Health care bill or b) was I specifically talking about the Tea party retards? Read it aloud and tell me the answer. Seriously, do you keep making strawmen to piss me off or is your tag actually true?

Even if you're simply referring to "Tea Party retards" it's still an incredibly stupid conclusion to draw--corporate puppets and ignorant hicks, really? That's 71% of Republicans that's you've reduced to caricature in an otherwise civilized discussion.

Is it possible for you to debate without name-calling and stereotyping everyone you don't like or disagree with?

lol. By that logic, the Republicans would've taken the initiative in the Senate and repealed DADT.

Not with the Dream Act attached to it. Relevant to this thread, I also didn't see many people out protesting the decision either, Facebook updates expressing extreme 'disgust' notwithstanding.

Nor did I see Obama jumping for joy as a judge actually lifted the thing.


EDIT: Teh Hamburglar is right. While Greece and France do suggest a broader trend, the discussion has side-tracked a bit...partially my fault here.

 

[Escape Goat]

Even in a discussion of French politics we somehow manage to make it out American goings ons.

 

[demosthenes]

This is like walking into your boss's office and demanding a pay cut for yourself.

With an increasing life expectancy I think it silly that we expect people to live from 60 to possibly 90+ without contributing anything to society.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Nor did I see Obama jumping for joy as a judge actually lifted the thing.

Haha! blame Obama :lol Classic. Conservative talking points really are that simple. No response? Blame Obama!

EDIT: Teh Hamburglar is right. While Greece and France do suggest a broader trend, the discussion has side-tracked a bit...partially my fault here.

Or squirm your way out...

Has it occurred to you that your logic:

Politicians listen to large groups of peaceful protesters because it's an indication that things may not go their way next election cycle.

is broken as hell?

 

[fortified_concept]

With an increasing life expectancy I think it silly that we expect people to live from 60 to possibly 90+ without contributing anything to society.

Since productivity is increasing exponentially and the working hours are still the same after a goddamn century that's the least we should ask for.

 

[fortified_concept]

Even if you're simply referring to "Tea Party retards" it's still an incredibly stupid conclusion to draw--corporate puppets and ignorant hicks, really? That's 71% of Republicans that's you've reduced to caricature in an otherwise civilized discussion.

Is it possible for you to debate without name-calling and stereotyping everyone you don't like or disagree with?

Yes, they're fucking stupid. They don't have a specific ideology or a plan, they're ignorant, many of them are racists, they only parrot talking points they hear on Fox News and often they parrot them wrong, and most important of all, they elect representatives so stupid they make republicans look like geniuses. I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoy hurting your feelings about these morons after all the strawmen and terrible tactics of yours the last few days.

 

[demosthenes]

Since productivity is increasing exponentially and the working hours are still the same after a goddamn century that's the least we should ask for.

Productivity is increasing exponentially? Really, where?

What do you expect to work a week? 30 hours?

Who's paying for all of these people to live essentially for free from 60 to 90+ and what kind of standard of living do you afford them?

 

[empty vessel]

With an increasing life expectancy I think it silly that we expect people to live from 60 to possibly 90+ without contributing anything to society.

So, to rephrase: you want to prohibit yourself from receiving retirement benefits that you have earned over an approximately 40-year career until a later age than you are currently entitled to obtain them? If you succeed in this demand, this makes you personally worse off, like asking for and receiving a pay cut.

What do you hope to gain by it?

 

[Deku]

No one likes their entitlements taken away.

That's really about all I can say on side with the protesters. It seems increadibly short sighted to not to want to push through these changes to make it less painful to finance the retirement of so many French people.

The fact that there's a contingent of youth protesting also show the protesters themselves don't really grasp the scale of the financial issues facing them and or are so ideologically wed to the ideas of the 20th century welfare state, they simply think protesting will fix everything and the government will magically find the funds to pay for their retirement.

What's most likely to happen, if these protests prevail, is the governments will raise taxes, and raid the pensions and other programs to maintain the programs at current levels for a few decades, then when it comes time for these young people to retire, the programs will be completely bankrupt and their children will no doubt just vote to do away with the welfare state rather than be faced with a 60+% tax burdern of paying for their parent's retirement.

 

[nyong]

Haha! blame Obama :lol Classic. Conservative talking points really are that simple. No response? Blame Obama!

MSNBC jumped on the blame-Obama bandwagon on this point, so I would hardly call it a "conservative talking point"--not that this term carries any meaning, since virtually every opinion of the right is blanketed with this same statement.

is broken as hell?

No squirming, I'll quickly address it:

Why do you think that many House Democrats are campaigning themselves against Pelosi and Obama? The Tea Party--for better or worse--is picking up steam and changing the political landscape. Much in the same way (peaceful) support for Obama led to his presidency. People can incite change without hijacking oil lines. Although they shouldn't expect things to go their way 100% of time, which seems to be core issue raised by this thread.

Yes, they're fucking stupid. They don't have a specific ideology or a plan, they're ignorant, many of them are racists, they only parrot talking points they hear on Fox News and often they parrot them wrong, and most important of all, they elect representatives so stupid they make republicans look like geniuses. I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoy hurting your feelings about these retards after all the strawmen and terrible tactics of yours the last few days.

I don't think you fully appreciate how little I regard your opinions. There's a guy like you in my literature class who is constantly ranting about this and that--who raises his voice when people contradict him--not realizing that the professor (and most people in the class) have very little respect for him, and really just want him to tone it down a notch so that we can move on with the discussion.

It's not that I don't want your opinion to be heard, but I'm going to keep insisting that you act like an adult while making it known.

 

[fortified_concept]

Productivity is increasing exponentially? Really, where?

What do you expect to work a week? 30 hours?

Who's paying for all of these people to live essentially for free from 60 to 90+ and what kind of standard of living do you afford them?

Don't look at this from a money point of view. The financial system hasn't been indicative of what humanity can produce for a long, long time. We're talking about productivity and productivity has quadrupled since the 60s and it keeps raising faster each year thanks to the advances of technology.

 

[demosthenes]

So, to rephrase: you want to prohibit yourself from receiving retirement benefits that you have earned over an approximately 40-year career until a later age than you are currently entitled to obtain them? If you succeed in this demand, this makes you personally worse off, like asking for and receiving a pay cut.

What do you hope to gain by it?

I hope to gain a system that can run on something besides borrowed time. Yes I've put money into the system, so therefore I should get something back in return but nothing says that you should possibly get 40 years of living for free unless you're living off of yourself.

My plans for retirement don't count SS or other government programs to be my main source of income.

Don't look at this from a money point of view. The financial system hasn't been indicative of what humanity can produce for a long, long time. We're talking about productivity and productivity has quadrupled since the 60s and it keeps raising faster each year thanks to the advances of technology.

You are making such broad and generalized statements that aren't taking into account that America's and other industrialized Euro countries growth looks stagnant compared to say India and China. Also ignored my other points, while not even really addressing the point you tried to.

 

[Mael]

Even in a discussion of French politics we somehow manage to make it out American goings ons.

Goddamn the fact that I don't have a steady connection!
Seriously this is as much relatable to current US politics going on as is Renaud next car about being green.
Meaning not at all, it's pretty simple it's only the continuation of what was done during Chirac's first year before he dissolved the Assemblée National.
Meaninng that anyone saying Tea Party and Obama doesn't have a clue, this is an old issue here dating as far back as 97(!).
For my part I don't care, it's not like we're given much of a choice anyway and I really don't care about that issue at all.
To top it off it's not even fun to follow (except for that part :
-Le monde : students on strike on the champs elysée
-Le monde later : police actually forcing students out of the champs elysée)

 

[MistakenMobius]

Irresponsible people taking hostage the rest of the country...

 

[fortified_concept]

You are making such broad and generalized statements that aren't taking into account that America's and other industrialized Euro countries growth looks stagnant compared to say India and China. Also ignored my other points, while not even really addressing the point you tried to.

You said:

With an increasing life expectancy I think it silly that we expect people to live from 60 to possibly 90+ without contributing anything to society.

You weren't talking about money, you were talking about how it is possible for someone to live from 60 to 90 without contributing to society. I explain that it is possible because the increase in productivity is allowing to do that and more (the financial system the way it's setup maybe does not but that's not the point). Please tell mew where I generalized or what points I missed.

 

[demosthenes]

You said:

You weren't talking about money, you were talking about how it is possible for someone to live from 60 to 90 without contributing to society. I explain that it is possible because the increase in productivity is allowing to do that and more (the financial system the way it's setup maybe does not but that's not the point). Please tell mew where I generalized or what points I missed.

Allowing to do what?!

Increased in what productivity will allow someone to retire @ 60 and live to 90?

This is for America...but there are less workers today than when the previous generation retired, there are less people putting into the pot and more people taking out of the pot, that isn't sustainable.

This is all about money because at the end of the day we are paying for those retired people.

You mentioned something about how the work week hasn't changed in a century and I asked how many hours a week you think is acceptable to work.

What kind of standard of living do you afford people living for 40 years without working?

Back on page 2 but this needs to be posted again:
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

 

[SomeDude]

Does anyopne here think Quebec looks better than even france itself?

 

[Kurtofan]

Does anyopne here think Quebec looks better than even france itself?

No it's just you.

Btw the minister of transports just said there's no penury yeah right.

 

[empty vessel]

I hope to gain a system that can run on something besides borrowed time. Yes I've put money into the system, so therefore I should get something back in return but nothing says that you should possibly get 40 years of living for free unless you're living off of yourself.

I don't understand how your point about 40 years of living for free is relevant. These kind of benefits programs are paid into, and people save on top of that for retirement. They are not "living for free." They are living on what they have already paid for. With programs like social security (and, again, I'm not sure how France's works), it may well be the case that some people ultimately draw more than they put into it, but it is also the case that many die before they see back what they put into it. If there is an imbalance there, i.e., more people taking out than putting in, that requires some adjustments to be made in order to preserve the long-term feasibility of the system, then so be it. But what those adjustments should be is a matter of negotiation. And your negotiating position seems just to be that you will reduce your own benefits. You seem to be claiming some sort of higher principle--that people should not be retired for 40 years--to justify advocating against your own interest, but it doesn't strike me as a very good one.

My plans for retirement don't count SS or other government programs to be my main source of income.

I don't think this is relevant, because, regardless of this, you are still advocating that your financial position be weakened.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Protests are largely responsible for many of the rights and liberties that we enjoy (and take for granted) today. It is critically important that we recognize the role of civil protest and disobedience as a means to check authority and to both defend and secure our livelihood. Civil rights, labour rights, women's rights, abolition of slavery, sex equality (okay, we're still working on that one), etc.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

Fuck yeah, France!!

 

[unomas]

I applaud the French, not letting the goverment stick it to you is a good thing. Too bad this will never happen in America.

 

[demosthenes]

I don't understand how your point about 40 years of living for free is relevant. These kind of benefits programs are paid into, and people save on top of that for retirement. They are not "living for free." They are living on what they have already paid for. With programs like social security (and, again, I'm not sure how France's works), it may well be the case that some people ultimately draw more than they put into it, but it is also the case that many die before they see back what they put into it. If there is an imbalance there, i.e., more people taking out than putting in, that requires some adjustments to be made in order to preserve the long-term feasibility of the system, then so be it. But what those adjustments should be is a matter of negotiation. And your negotiating position seems just to be that you will reduce your own benefits. You seem to be claiming some sort of higher principle--that people should not be retired for 40 years--to justify advocating against your own interest, but it doesn't strike me as a very good one.

I don't think this is relevant, because, regardless of this, you are still advocating that your financial position be weakened.

Not everyone saves for retirement. My parents, some family and many of their friends didn't think of this stuff. I'd wager from what I've seen that a lot of baby boomers didn't start thinking about retirement in their 20's.

What adjustments do you see as possible to keep the system going if not changing when people may take? Why is 60 so important to you?

America and many other industrialized countries have the problem of an aging population.

40 years ago we had more workers than retirees. The position has changed. We at least now have less workers than retirees. The difference here and for the next possibly 20-40 years for some of these people comes from where?

Yes, I realize I'm hurting my financial position. I'm not trying to maximize it at the expense of everyone else b/c I realize that there is everyone else. They're not just statistics. I don't believe in getting along for free. You work for it. I don't know personally where I draw the line where someone can just stop working but going from 60 to 62 and rioting? Pathetic.

edit: Random, but why do all the protesters in those pictures look like highschool and college students? Where are the 40 year-olds?

 

[fortified_concept]

Allowing to do what?!

Increased in what productivity will allow someone to retire @ 60 and live to 90?

This is for America...but there are less workers today than when the previous generation retired, there are less people putting into the pot and more people taking out of the pot, that isn't sustainable.

This is all about money because at the end of the day we are paying for those retired people.

I'm saying it is sustainable under the current conditions (40 hour week). No this isn't about money because you were asking how it is possible for that to happen not how it is possible under the current economic system where most of the gains from the increase of productivity went to the upper class the last few decades (one of the main reasons the gap between rich and poor has increased so much).

You mentioned something about how the work week hasn't changed in a century and I asked how many hours a week you think is acceptable to work.

What kind of standard of living do you afford people living for 40 years without working?

This is a different discussion. Personally I believe in a system of less hours per week with a gradual retirement system where the worker will work less and less after reaching certain age depending on how much society can afford (actually afford though, not afford after the upper class has kept a big piece for themselves or the financial system has collapsed so growth has stagnated but not because humanity can't produce more but because of fictional economic numbers). But this is a theoretical long discussion that is completely offtopic.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Retirement age should definitely scale with life expectancy. When people are living to 80 on average, retiring at 60 means 20 years not working. Considering that most people don't save enough to last 20 years of retirement, the government will be supporting them and it'll be a massive drain on tax dollars.

It also means that most people would be working half or less of their life time.

this should not even have to be explained. what kind of populous thinks its really okay to live off the backs of their children for 20-30 years of their lives? get to fucking work, Gramps. we'll find you some sedentary work you can handle.

I don't understand how your point about 40 years of living for free is relevant. These kind of benefits programs are paid into, and people save on top of that for retirement. They are not "living for free." They are living on what they have already paid for.

bullshit. those programs were designed to support for <10 years. people are now living twice as long, hence the reason why the system is about to break. fuck that. scale the work to keep that <10 of pension draw on target.

 

[demosthenes]

this should not even have to be explained. what kind of populous thinks its really okay to live off the backs of their children for 20-30 years of their lives? get to fucking work, Gramps. we'll find you some sedentary work you can handle.

People that have grown up in an entitlement age.

I used to work in retail, Target in a pretty well off area of suburbia. People believe they're entitled to everything.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

People that have grown up in an entitlement age.

I used to work in retail, Target in a pretty well off area of suburbia. People believe they're entitled to everything.

they'll find out a hard, cold ass reality soon. it's funny...they have this entitlement perspective thanks to their baby-boomer parents. smh.

 

[fortified_concept]

People that have grown up in an entitlement age.

I used to work in retail, Target in a pretty well off area of suburbia. People believe they're entitled to everything.

I like how americans always talk about how entitlement will teach the new generation a lesson but the reasons you actually get "taught a lesson" each and every time have nothing to do with entitlement and more with expensive wars, shameless stealing of the wealth the middle class creates by the rich, and spectacular free market fuckups. Yet for a strange reason you insist on targeting the workers' "entitlement" instead of the actual problems.

 

[demosthenes]

I like how americans always talk about how entitlement will teach the new generation a lesson but the reasons you actually get "taught a lesson" each and every time have nothing to do with entitlement and more with expensive wars, shameless stealing of the wealth the middle class creates by the rich, and spectacular free market fuckups. Yet for a strange reason you insist on targeting the workers' "entitlement" instead of the actual problems.

I'm from the middle class, I will be working until I'm at last 60 (I can say that with 99% confidence) and probably longer but I have no idea how the future is going to work. I've been working since I was 13 years old, please don't lump me together with whatever stereotype of an American you have (appears to be negative).

The system at least in this country was setup thinking people would be living 10-20 years with Social Security at most. Now that number is 30-40 years and with more advances in medicine that may grow even more. It doesn't make sense that plan a for situation a would work for situation b.

 

[gutter_trash]

Does anyopne here think Quebec looks better than even france itself?

what? I say what because I don't understand your question formulation,

Quebec is politically in SNOOZE mode now in 2010... it's boring politics as usual and not much fuss going on about usually partisan hackery that is just zzzzzzzzzzzzz boring

the people at large have political fatigue and loss of interest is high

 

[Magni]

To all Americans applauding the French.. no, don't applaud these lazy fuckers who are holding us hostage. Thank god I don't have to take public transportation or trains this week..

Sad to see no one replied to my post and that the discussion instead finished on US politics.. Guys, we have PoliGAF for that :lol

 

[fortified_concept]

I'm from the middle class, I will be working until I'm at last 60 (I can say that with 99% confidence) and probably longer but I have no idea how the future is going to work. I've been working since I was 13 years old, please don't lump me together with whatever stereotype of an American you have (appears to be negative).

The system at least in this country was setup thinking people would be living 10-20 years with Social Security at most. Now that number is 30-40 years and with more advances in medicine that may grow even more. It doesn't make sense that plan a for situation a would work for situation b.

I'm not stereotyping here, it's just an observation of what many americans do. Am I wrong? Is it not true that you get screwed each and every time from expensive wars or the rich robbing you blind, yet many americans keep blaming social services, "slackers" and entitlement? This isn't something new, it's been going on since Reagan.

 

[avaya]

I don't know why fortified continues to embarrass himself with the Goldman Sachs conspiracy nonsense. There was no conspiracy. Greece sought institutions who would part-take in off-market currency forwards in order to hide their debt. Goldman and Morgan Stanley would not turn down this opportunity, they could enter into terms with stratospheric implied premiums even after allowing for hazard rates since the Greeks were so desperate. Greeks have no one to blame but themselves.

You are borderline batshit if you believe Goldman is involved in some grand conspiracy. Gary Cohn and Lloyd do not belong to some master race. The management is largely clueless when it comes to the bigger picture. Those firms are run by their separate desks. Management hardly has any real and tangible control on direction. How do you think they nearly all went tits up? Goldman's shining subprime short of 2007 was off the back of a Deutsche Bank sales conference in London. That was one golden crouton in a sea of shit soup.

Now this is not to say that there is more than a slight hint of ideological fuckery going on with right leaning governments in the EU at the moment. The nonsense Greece analogy is used so freely by the government in the UK. It is embarrassing.

I don't understand how your point about 40 years of living for free is relevant. .

I often enjoy your posts systematically dismantling the Free Market Taliban but you are a slave to ideology when it comes to this issue.

Pensions were always budgeted with an expected lifetime. Those are the facts because no scheme is sustainable if you PV'ed from infinity.

Defined benefit obligations rely on estimation of retirement age. It is fundamental to the calculation. Those programs are all headed for bankruptcy because people are unwilling to move the parameters in line with technological progress. Retirement age has to scale.

Defined benefit (i.e. X will pay Y a constant value Q for n periods) as a concept is also completely broken, but that is another matter.

Productivity increases not only mean that you can contribute more to society while you work, it also means you get more value per unit of leisure time i.e. less waiting and greater access.

The concept of universal benefits is also broken, they should all be means tested.

The other issue which is inter-related: collection of revenues. I personally believe collection of corporate taxes at the national level is headed for disaster, international competition is actually a race to the bottom with corporate tax rates. There is a steady trend of governments collecting less corporate tax revenue as a proportion of the total take.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I'm from the middle class, I will be working until I'm at last 60 (I can say that with 99% confidence) and probably longer but I have no idea how the future is going to work. I've been working since I was 13 years old, please don't lump me together with whatever stereotype of an American you have (appears to be negative).

The system at least in this country was setup thinking people would be living 10-20 years with Social Security at most. Now that number is 30-40 years and with more advances in medicine that may grow even more. It doesn't make sense that plan a for situation a would work for situation b.

"To show that Social Security today is not what President Franklin Roosevelt intended when he signed it into law in 1935, talk show host Glenn Beck claimed that its creators may have designed it so many people would not live long enough to receive the benefits.

"When Social Security started, age expectancy for the average man was 58. It was 62 for women," said Beck. "Wait a minute, when did benefits come in? At 65."

His point was that Social Security was not meant to benefit as many people as it does today. Indeed, Beck went on to say that if Roosevelt had passed the law now, the starting age would be around 80 years old, due to longer life expectancy.

We wondered if Beck was right about life expectancy in the 1930s.

Indeed, he was correct. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency that tracks birth and death data, says that a man born in 1935, on average, lived until he was 60; a woman typically lived until she was 64. So Beck's claims of 58 and 62 were just off slightly. And Beck was correct that an average person would die before Social Security took effect.

What about Beck's implication that the age was chosen purposefully so that the majority of Americans would never recieve their Social Security benefits? Was FDR making this calculation?

Probably not, said Edward Berkowitz, a professor on Public Policy at the George Washington University and author of several books on Social Security. "I think that the age was chosen somewhat at random, certainly not to hedge actuarial bets."

Berkowitz thought that an alternative explanation for the age choice was that the Germans had a similar program that the Americans used as a model. Berkowitz also pointed out that the median age might not reflect real life expectancy because the number was skewed by a large share of infant deaths. "After you survive infancy, life expectancy goes up."

Of course, we can't be sure what FDR was thinking, but for our purposes, Beck's statement is off by just a couple of years and his overall point is right that life expectancy was below the retirement age of 65. That's close enough to earn a True."

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...k/Glenn-Beck-Social-Security-life-expectancy/

something to munch on, gentlemen.

 

[demosthenes]

Holy shit dreams :lol

Beck actually spoke some truth.

 

[fortified_concept]

To all Americans applauding the French.. no, don't applaud these lazy fuckers who are holding us hostage. Thank god I don't have to take public transportation or trains this week..

Sad to see no one replied to my post and that the discussion instead finished on US politics.. Guys, we have PoliGAF for that :lol

Your post compared retirement ages to other nations. Why should France increase the retirement age and not other countries decrease theirs? Why each time a government wants to screw their citizens they resort to that kind of argumentation as if the solution that screws the citizen the most is the best?

 

[demosthenes]

Your post compared retirement ages to other nations. Why should France increase the retirement age and not other countries decrease theirs? Why each time a government wants to screw their citizens they resort to that kind of argumentation as if the measure that screws the citizen the most is the best?

Underlined: Each country should have systems that work in their nation. If some nations have different tax codes that allow individuals to retire 2 or 5 years earlier or later then you can move to that country and work there. You'll probably give something up or gain something by doing so though.

Bold: What?

As far as Americans getting screwed. I don't know what you mean by this. The middle class while it has decreased has still done pretty well. The only income brackets that haven't seen their income grow are the bottom two (those under $30,000 a year) I believe.

Expensive wars? I don't know what nation you're from, but the only war we've been in that I would call a 'waste' would be Vietnam and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Holy shit dreams :lol

Beck actually spoke some truth.

indeed. buh buh...teh entitlements! teh buggament should float me for 2 or 3 decades!

not.

 

[Magni]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...k/Glenn-Beck-Social-Security-life-expectancy/

something to munch on, gentlemen.

Same thing in Germany originally IIRC, retirement was at 65 when the life expectancy was at 55.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Same thing in Germany originally IIRC, retirement was at 65 when the life expectancy was at 55.

retirement age raise MUST happen. government can kiss my ass if they think they can keep it at 65 and boost my taxes up to 75% of my income over the next 25 years. that shit won't be happening. I'll move my business to China and throw a middle finger to the USA.

 

[Shanadeus]

retirement age raise MUST happen. government can kiss my ass if they think they can keep it at 65 and boost my taxes up to 75% of my income over the next 25 years. that shit won't be happening. I'll move my business to China and throw a middle finger to the USA.

You don't have to chose between just higher taxes or higher retirement ages - you're missing out a lot of relevant factors when you simplify things like that.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...fuel-in-days-as-strikes-escalate-2383646.html

:lol
Gotta love the french, they don't take shit from their government
The rest of the world can learn a thing or two from them instead of making old frog jokes

Some places apparently have mountains of garbage because the garbage collectors are on strike as well :lol

VIVA LA FRANCE!

Oh god I can't imagine. Paris smells bad enough as it is

 

[fortified_concept]

Underlined: Each country should have systems that work in their nation. If some nations have different tax codes that allow individuals to retire 2 or 5 years earlier or later then you can move to that country and work there. You'll probably give something up or gain something by doing so though.

Bold: What?

My point is that the argumentation makes no sense. He presents numbers from other countries that are showing that the French have it better as if that's an argument for the increase of retirement age. As if the countries that are getting screwed more are wiser or something because they're getting screwed more.

As far as Americans getting screwed. I don't know what you mean by this. The middle class while it has decreased has still done pretty well. The only income brackets that haven't seen their income grow are the bottom two (those under $30,000 a year) I believe.

Expensive wars? I don't know what nation you're from, but the only war we've been in that I would call a 'waste' would be Vietnam and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now this is the phenomenon I'm talking about. You don't mind that much that the middle class has decreased because of expensive wars, the huge gap between rich and poor, the unemployment, the fucking corporations leaving your country to exploit Vietnamese kids for a few cents a day, the enormous mistakes in the financial sector, the tax cuts for the rich etc. you almost seem at peace with that even though these are the main reasons for all the problems in USA. But you hear about middle class wanting entitlements and you rant for an entire thread. To my eyes it seems like a slave defending his master from other slaves who want to get free. With people raising against authority and demanding entitlements is how we enjoy our freedoms and rights we have today, this is the historic truth, you claim the complete opposite.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

You don't have to chose between just higher taxes or higher retirement ages - you're missing out a lot of relevant factors when you simplify things like that.

name them. I only see 2 camps:

Camp A Says: "People's health and ability to work are seriously degraded by that age (65+) and raising the age of eligibility higher would be disastrous. Instead remove the cap on certain taxes...and increase other taxes as necessary to compensate for the projected shortfalls. Furthermore, if you fuck with us, Camp B, our union might will shut this mothafucka down."

Camp B Says: "Fuck you and your increased taxes, Camp A! If these people are living 20-30 years longer than when the system was envisioned and implemented, then we have to see a bump in the qualifying age. Unlike in the 30s, there are plenty of sedentary jobs out there that retiree-age people can handle. Jobs that don't require long hours of standing, for example. let's figure out how to get them ready for those jobs. It's immoral to ask their children to support their retirement years income for 20-30 years. It's immoral to raise their taxes sky high so that their parents can stop contributing. and it's immoral to suggest that someone older can't work and contribute to this society."

if there's a middle ground, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Magni]

My point is that the argumentation makes no sense. He presents numbers from other countries that are showing that the French have it better as if that's an argument for the increase of retirement age. As if the countries that are getting screwed more are wiser or something because they're getting screwed more.

We don't have it better. If things don't change, we'll get screwed in the long run. Lazy old people might want to protest because the reform will affect them the worst, but the kids? If it doesn't pass, they'll be fucked!